Search for "hello" in the a9.com engine (click here if you are lazy) and check out one particular picture in the first column on the right of the page.
Personally, I'd like to see a lot fewer article about Linux's acceptance or nonacceptance on the desktop, the pervasive attacks on our freedom by DMCA/RFID/PATRIOT/DRM/GWB/Internet Explorer [...] But the iPod...
Are you seriously telling me that news about the ipod are more important than the pervasive attacks on our freedom? Stuff that matters indeed. The world is bigger than our ipods
Having a separate phone and PDA neatly fits the Unix model. The phone is there to make calls and can also act as a modem (Bluetooth is your friend). The PDA is for email, contacts, checkbook, notes, etc.
By contrast, smartphones represent Gatesian bloat and feature creep. They are, inevitably, a half-assed kludge of the two that do both things half-assed but neither particularly well. Usually, you end up with a PDA on a cell-phone sized screen.
Respectfully, I belive that you're confusing the physical and the logical layer. Unix is all about simplicity - in the logical or software layer. Unix lovers like myself are arguing that a program should do one thing and should do it well, with hooks (apis, pipes, whatever) for connectivity with other programs. Nobody (on his or her right mind) is arguing that we should have one computer to, say, use openoffice, one computer to connect to the network or one computer to listen to music. That's on the psysical layer.
Coming to PDAs, the Unix model would fit rather well: Simplicity, components, reusability small, easily maintainable programs. I actually do research on this (smameless plug). Arguing that a computer should need a separate device to connect to the network is kinda silly in my opinion. Certainly, in a traditional desktop computer, you need a network card, but it's embedded into the big grey box at your feet: You still have one big device. This is further exagerated in the mobile world: Two devices are bigger than one (usually) and physical space is at a premium when you're mobile...
How about just a plain phone where the battery actually works through the day and does not cut out every time you order Chinese takeout?
I really don't understand these type of comments. How bad is the telephone system in the US? The past 3-4 mobile phone devices that I used over the past 6 years or so (which were _all_ free with a service plan, as I'm a cheap bastard), all had a battery that lasted at least 72 hours on average use (my T39m lasted for about a week) and the coverage (Greece & UK) was/is great! I mean, I don't really care about PDA features (although the treo looks nice) or the cameras, but we've had phones where the battery actually works and the line does not cut out, for ages now!
Debian tests for a wider range of architectures than the rest of the Linux distros, and in fact wider than XFree86 itself does. (Branden Robinson points this out on his site - Google for 'Debian X Strike Force').
The odd architectures are more difficult to test for, but it results in a couple of benefits:
* Changes can go upstream (obviously, I'm not referring to 4.4) -- and in fact XF86 kind of expects Debian to test for them * Debian as a whole gets a much more stable set of X packages than the others do -- unstable packages for X are at least as stable as most other distros' production versions.
Ah, but I do understand this. But isn't this the whole point of *unstable*? Sure unstable gets a stable (sounds wrong already doesn't it?) XFree 4.3 package after 1 year, and even that isn't really true as apparently dri is broken. Meanwhile, lots of people are using XFree 4.3 dri on lots of other distros - certainly on less platforms than debian supports but isn't the point of unstable to be bleeding edge? It certainly doesn't seem to be.
I honestly cannot see how debian people can claim that their distro does not lag behind in current features (not that this is bad mind you - not at all. Debian stable rocks as a server, I've deployed many machines myself) pointing at unstable, when it takes a *year* to get XFree 4.3 there.
This is not mean to be a troll, honest. But wasn't the whole purpose of Debian Unstable to be really up to date? I mean, when people complain that debian is way too far behind, debian fans are quick to point out that debian has three distros and that unstable is really quite stable and as up to date as other distros. Now, XFree86 4.3.0 was released on the 26th of February last year - Why did it take a whole year for it to be included in unstable?
Linux in currently unable to take advantage of Centrino's wireless networking devices, without, that is, prying $20 from your thin wallet to buy Linuxant's DriverLoader
Not true. I'm using the open-source ndiswrapper project together with the win32 drivers, and it works, although a bit buggy. See here
The problem with Outlook isn't "C," the problem with outlook is Javascript, VBScript, and Windows Scripting Host, which are PRECISELY the sorts of high-level languages [and their interpreters]
Err no. He's definetly not an idiot (SUN anyone?) and he's not a liar. What he means by this is that as Outook is written in C, buffer over/underruns can happen which is what most viruses exploit (they then proceed to use high level languages such as Javascript etc. to get the email addresses and broadcast spam and viruses). But the primary problem is that oulook has security holes, usually buffer over/underruns. This is not _because_ of C, but what he's saying (and he's mostly right) is that if outlook was written in Java, there would be NO buffer underruns.
that this little terd is advocating.
Or is he just a common liar? I dunno - you be the judge.
Here's the other side of the story. Special Force, an fps " allegedly produced by the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah. The game's designers seek to "correct" the influence of western gaming concepts on the Middle East. In particular, they want to combat the view that the "oppressor" always defeats the "Arab."".
I find Qt/Embedded (QtE) to be extremely resource-efficient for building really surprisingly sophisticated applications that run natively on multiple platforms with a simple recompile. QtE also integrates seamlessly with Java
Too bad the parent post's author is not actually Miguel de Icaza (the Gnome/Ximian guy).
Slashdot Mirror
Note it's definitely NOT safe for work. Gahhhhh
Err no. anthology is not a "world", at it comes from the Greek for word/speech about flowers (logos=word/speech, anthos=flower).
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
and so do monkeys!... if you give them a gun. (thanks eddie izzard!)
Personally, I'd like to see a lot fewer article about Linux's acceptance or nonacceptance on the desktop, the pervasive attacks on our freedom by DMCA/RFID/PATRIOT/DRM/GWB/Internet Explorer [...] But the iPod...
Are you seriously telling me that news about the ipod are more important than the pervasive attacks on our freedom? Stuff that matters indeed. The world is bigger than our ipods
Respectfully, I belive that you're confusing the physical and the logical layer. Unix is all about simplicity - in the logical or software layer. Unix lovers like myself are arguing that a program should do one thing and should do it well, with hooks (apis, pipes, whatever) for connectivity with other programs. Nobody (on his or her right mind) is arguing that we should have one computer to, say, use openoffice, one computer to connect to the network or one computer to listen to music. That's on the psysical layer.
Coming to PDAs, the Unix model would fit rather well: Simplicity, components, reusability small, easily maintainable programs. I actually do research on this (smameless plug). Arguing that a computer should need a separate device to connect to the network is kinda silly in my opinion. Certainly, in a traditional desktop computer, you need a network card, but it's embedded into the big grey box at your feet: You still have one big device. This is further exagerated in the mobile world: Two devices are bigger than one (usually) and physical space is at a premium when you're mobile...
I understand your point, but Konqueror is not exactly the most marketable name in the history of computing.
Well, in other cultures it's called "maturity"
Hey, I don't think that proprietary software makers saw it coming either! (I'm on a roll here!
And is this good or bad for those of us who are not yanks?
I really don't understand these type of comments. How bad is the telephone system in the US? The past 3-4 mobile phone devices that I used over the past 6 years or so (which were _all_ free with a service plan, as I'm a cheap bastard), all had a battery that lasted at least 72 hours on average use (my T39m lasted for about a week) and the coverage (Greece & UK) was/is great! I mean, I don't really care about PDA features (although the treo looks nice) or the cameras, but we've had phones where the battery actually works and the line does not cut out, for ages now!
Debian tests for a wider range of architectures than the rest of the Linux distros, and in fact wider than XFree86 itself does. (Branden Robinson points this out on his site - Google for 'Debian X Strike Force').
The odd architectures are more difficult to test for, but it results in a couple of benefits:
* Changes can go upstream (obviously, I'm not referring to 4.4) -- and in fact XF86 kind of expects Debian to test for them
* Debian as a whole gets a much more stable set of X packages than the others do -- unstable packages for X are at least as stable as most other distros' production versions.
Ah, but I do understand this. But isn't this the whole point of *unstable*? Sure unstable gets a stable (sounds wrong already doesn't it?) XFree 4.3 package after 1 year, and even that isn't really true as apparently dri is broken. Meanwhile, lots of people are using XFree 4.3 dri on lots of other distros - certainly on less platforms than debian supports but isn't the point of unstable to be bleeding edge? It certainly doesn't seem to be.
I honestly cannot see how debian people can claim that their distro does not lag behind in current features (not that this is bad mind you - not at all. Debian stable rocks as a server, I've deployed many machines myself) pointing at unstable, when it takes a *year* to get XFree 4.3 there.
This is not mean to be a troll, honest. But wasn't the whole purpose of Debian Unstable to be really up to date? I mean, when people complain that debian is way too far behind, debian fans are quick to point out that debian has three distros and that unstable is really quite stable and as up to date as other distros. Now, XFree86 4.3.0 was released on the 26th of February last year - Why did it take a whole year for it to be included in unstable?
and a 1 ...
:-)
and a 2
"Na na naa naaa..., na na naa naaaa..., heyyy eyy eyy, GOODBYE!!!!!
Is that an Alice Cooper ("Hey Stupid") reference??
Not true. I'm using the open-source ndiswrapper project together with the win32 drivers, and it works, although a bit buggy. See here
Sometime in 2011.
(predictable, I know)
... smaller is better.
This is quite possibly the only instance I can think of where this is true.
You've never been hit by a car.
Or a PDA
Use samba with the "encrypt passwords" option.
That's true, but bare in mind that most (>90% ?) spam is from US companies advertising US products and stocks...
Also, if the idea takes up, more countries could implement this...
The problem with Outlook isn't "C," the problem with outlook is Javascript, VBScript, and Windows Scripting Host, which are PRECISELY the sorts of high-level languages [and their interpreters]
Err no. He's definetly not an idiot (SUN anyone?) and he's not a liar. What he means by this is that as Outook is written in C, buffer over/underruns can happen which is what most viruses exploit (they then proceed to use high level languages such as Javascript etc. to get the email addresses and broadcast spam and viruses). But the primary problem is that oulook has security holes, usually buffer over/underruns. This is not _because_ of C, but what he's saying (and he's mostly right) is that if outlook was written in Java, there would be NO buffer underruns.
that this little terd is advocating.
Or is he just a common liar? I dunno - you be the judge.
Oopps, I have probably been trolled. My bad.
And actually there is a compiler (not cross though) for the palmos. OnboardC. Open source too!
I'm very eager to get my hands on the T3
has a bluetooth keyboard and mouse combo, here.
Here's the other side of the story. Special Force, an fps " allegedly produced by the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah. The game's designers seek to "correct" the influence of western gaming concepts on the Middle East. In particular, they want to combat the view that the "oppressor" always defeats the "Arab."".
I found an article about it in arstechnica.
See any problems with this story? Email our on-duty editor.
Could it be that slashdot is getting some dupe/fake etc protection?
Too bad the parent post's author is not actually Miguel de Icaza (the Gnome/Ximian guy).
the warez and porn link (http://torrentse.cx/) that is.
First slashdot troll article summary?
You don't leave here, do you?